Go by Example - Hackdot

Re:Go by Example by Shamanmuni on Friday January 17, 2014 @12:40PM (#7077141)

I tend to think that you and the rest of "Generics or death!" crowd make a disservice to your own cause when you lazily come and repeat the same arguments. The rest gets bored and frustrated. Yeah, we get it, you like generics, it makes sorting stuff easier, and you're repeating the same stuff over and over again for our own good because you are true altruists, etc. Can we get over that?

If there's another thread which talks about good and bad points of the Golang design then, by all means, bash the language as much as you like. But if there's something you don't like it doesn't mean you get a free pass to repeat yourself whenever something with Go in the title appears in HN, whatever it is. Context matters, you aren't helping anybody, just trolling.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go by Example by jamesaguilar on Friday January 17, 2014 @01:42PM (#7077597)

I would surely never take these complaints to a go-specific discussion board. That would be disruptive and rude. But this site is not that. I will react to stories on here as pleases me, and it pleases me to constructively criticize certain go design choices sometimes when the subject comes up.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go by Example by Shamanmuni on Friday January 17, 2014 @02:11PM (#7077761)

You don't fool anybody, the subject didn't come up untill you brought it. The thread is about a site that shows examples of Go code and explains them, there's no discussion about the advantages or disadvantages of their design decisions, just matter of fact statements.

Of course, you can do whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us won't probably look at your comments thinking "Here come the generics whiners again" and look in the other direction. You are alienating your audience with your indiscriminate repetition.

And, if the disclaimer helps you, I'd like generics in Go, they are useful sometimes. I just don't see the point in such zealotry over something which is merely convenient.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go by Example by 0xdeadbeefbabe on Friday January 17, 2014 @02:35PM (#7077917)

If only there were a workaround for not having generics, sigh.

But seriously, they may not implement generics out of spite or just to troll generics zealots.

Edit: remove ambiguity

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go by Example by dvirsky on Friday January 17, 2014 @05:14PM (#7078811)

I recently added the statement "type T interface{}" to a piece of code, as a private joke about the generics-in-go talk.

now my code looks like "func map(x []T, f func(T) T)" and everybody's happy :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go by Example by earthboundkid on Friday January 17, 2014 @08:52PM (#7079680)

I firmly believe that when Go introduces generics, the syntax should look like:

type T1 generic type T2 generic

func Map(f func(T1) T2, s []T1) []T2

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go by Example by jamesaguilar on Friday January 17, 2014 @02:58PM (#7078053)

I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to fool people about. When Go comes up, I sometimes want to talk about how good I think it is. I hope you don't think I'm trying to hide that. It is pretty common on HN to comment on the merits of a thing when the thing itself comes up, even if said merits are not the specific subject of the link.

I can see that I am putting some people off with my commentary, but other people apparently got new information. Hard to say whether this is a win or loss on net. Time will tell, sooner or later.

[ Parent | on HN ]